Tereza Okava wrote:I am training an intern and thought of this thread today when giving her a resource for those moments of doubt when you can`t remember.... is it affect or effect? or any of those stinky situations where you're not sure of which word you mean.
One of the best guides is The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage. It is not a word dictionary, it is a point by point grammar dictionary.
Walter Jeffries wrote:I feed about 240,000 pounds (120 tons) of hay every winter to our pigs and that is almost all grasses. That is the bulk of what they eat.
Hello, Walter. How many animals/pigs for how many months/weeks does this 120 tons of hay provide food for?
Kill me, I went through the spelling bee mill twice in my early teens. I couldn't diagram a sentence to save my life but I learned the verb tenses (lay, lie, lying, laid, etc) and how to spell.
And yet here you are, a grammatical genius, as are all native speakers of any language, children, who by age three have the vast majority of the rules of grammar figured out.
It's funny how we allow ourselves to be bullied for things that are simple truths. I was called "four eyes" at times thru my young life and to tell y'all the truth, I accepted it as a dig/slur/... when it never even made any sense to me. I think kids should be trained to accept hurtful things with a "yeah, you're totally right" kind of attitude because really, we all know what bullying is about. It's not about helpfulness or even truth so teach your children just to accept it in a flippant, "I could care less" kind of manner. The bully would be floored if Travis's young daughter said casually and confidently, "yeah, you're right!, Cool observation."
I too, hated hot weather and humid conditions. Then I moved to a country where it was both very hot and very humid. I NEVER once talked myself into thinking I couldn't stand it. I became heat tolerant. I never ever used my AC even though it was there and available. Cold showers were available because the water was never really cold - cool showers were taken.
I firmly believe that one can condition themselves, a type of personal brainwashing, into being physically intolerant of certain things. I do not deny that there could be physical conditions for some that make them unable to do certain things but we all know how deeply we are conditioned throughout our lives to accept what those who came before have told us.
Try talking permaculture or even a different style of gardening to folks who have done it the "family" way for many years.
I got the freebie read a bit on my Amazon book thingee and it was a good read. I expect the unrevealed stuff to be even better than the revealed and I still like to hold a book more than I do a laptop for reading.
I noted a Permaculture argument that also rings true for the trials and tribulations surrounding the English grammar/prescriptions threads. People, even when they find out the truth are loathe to change, loathe to reject the old canards they have been taught thru their formative years, largely because they don't even know where to start.
I have been watching a lot of this PC stuff lately. I just came across Geoff Lawton and his desert project. Tell me, anyone, have there been any threads on China's greening of the desert, Rechsand, growing rice in the desert, ... .
When one takes a snow bath in -35C/-31F you keep moving so fast than you don't have time to get cold.
Regarding the shower in a regular house, even a 45F/6C house, if one uses a chamois to quickly get all the liquid water off and then into a dry towel. Saves on laundry too as towels last longer between washes.
There are twin light socket adapters so one could have both a regular light bulb and a infrared bulb.
Cold can be easily overcome. It's mostly a matter of relaxing, a kind of meditation.
Monk Meditates Beneath Ice-Cold Waterfall in Nikko, Japan
Mark Rose wrote:One idea is to use infrared heat instead of heating the whole space.
But even more clever is to have the infrared heat follow you.
Cool gadgetry, Mark and you are quite the whiz with these units. Maybe you should approach the manufacturer with a patent [yours] that would have the "follower" be part of the unit.
Can I ask, why is your basement only at 13C? Is the basement insulated?
Are there no heat ducts that empty there? Is the system a gas/forced air heating arrangement?
Daniel Ray wrote:Here is the beginning of our batch rocket mass heater--we used Peter's numbers for an 8" stove and I can tell this thing is already going to be a beast. Very excited to light it up this week and post some photos of the burn. Our riser is experimenting with the partial octagon shape that was experimented with in the Mallorca workshop with Peter--visit here http://donkey32.proboards.com/thread/2364/rocket-heater-build-peter-mallorca
I love what you did with your rafter ends scalloped. [in the "clay plaster, brown coat on back wall" picture] What width did the ends end up at? 2x6 width?? 2x4??
I checked your yearly weather for Victor. Balmy winters. Your frost penetration foundation line must be minimal.
Daniel Ray wrote:Shower is getting the tadelakt treatment. So many hours going into this project, but I think it will be worth it when this is finally cured in two months.
Hi Daniel and LUCKY family! The word, tadelakt, and the pics of course, peaked my interest. Where did you learn of and get enough info to do this process? How long did it actually take? Is there a lot of wait time between coats? What is it that makes the project long?
I like yours. I also read that it is used to actually make sinks, ... .
Is there any concern about differential cracking between the tub and the tadelakt surfaces? What is the wall surface/on the wall to the left of the tub - is that a straw bale wall/coated?
James Freyr wrote:Yay windows!!! Finally, we have windows installed, but not without a hitch. Man is it ever apparent that if something can go wrong, it will. When windows are ordered, the rough opening size is the information given to the companies that then order windows from the manufacturer. Generally, either the window company themselves or the manufacturer will then deduct a 1/4" on three sides of the rough opening measurement so the window will fit into the rough opening. Someone somewhere failed to make the deduction and the windows were made and shipped to me the same size as the rough opening, meaning they didn't fit. Not a single window.
If you gave ROs then the screw up was DEFINITELY not your fault.
r ranson wrote:In my research, I haven't found a single person in the publishing industry that thought prescriptive grammar described rules of how to use the language. A style guide is in the name - a guide. Grammatical guides are also guides.
If you happen to have a background in academia or journalism, you will probably be familiar the AP Stylebook or the Chicago Manual of Style. Those are great resources for writing in general, particularly for grammar and syntax,
I have an academic background and I was required to purchase and use the Chicago Manual of Style. In my day, it was called Turabian after the now long dead first author. It still has a section on grammar. The latest edition asked Bryan Garner to do the grammar section. Are you familiar with the CMS and B Garner? Above, from Write the Docs group notes that CMS and the AP Stylebook both have sections on grammar and syntax.
r ranson wrote:I'm not really seeing what you are saying here.
Are you agreeing with me that the things they teach in the university encourage prescriptive grammar - aka, the observation of language? That is what they taught me.
Actually, Steven Pinker said it, not me. But I agree fully with him. The use of prescriptive grammar isn't "the observation of language", it is the exact opposite of that. As Professor Pinker notes, these "rules" were established in the 18th century by folks who were not language scientists. They weren't followed by native speakers before that time nor have they been followed since.
I ask, with great respect to all, How can a "rule" of the English language be considered a real rule of the language when these "rules" had never been followed before the time they were invented, the 18th century or after, to this day?
But that passage in Swaim's memoir brilliantly epitomizes what Geoff Pullum has called the "nervous cluelessness" of many educated Anglophones in matters of usage. Like Sanford, they dimly recall something about not starting — or was it ending? — a sentence with a preposition — or was in a conjunction? They aren't entirely sure what prepositions and conjunctions are, anyhow, and they have no idea why you shouldn't start or end sentences with them, but they're pretty sure there's some rule like that, and "you can't break rules".
Geoff Pullum is one of the authors of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. This mighty tome spends some time debunking the prescriptive ideas. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, another landmark study, uses the English language itself, writing and speaking of all users of the English language to also show that these prescriptions are not followed by language users. My copy of the latter is not with me at present so I can't quote the portion that describes how the 'may'of permission is hardly used at all. The 'can' of permission is far and away the most commonly used marker for asking permission. Why don't the people who think this is a rule ever comment on the use of 'could' for permission?
Now remember, this isn't me that has formulated these ideas, it comes from language scientists, the people who study language and how people, native speakers, that is, actually use the English language.
r ranson wrote:I must say, I cringe to read that quote.
Why? It is a simple description of historical fact.
r ranson wrote:Orwell would churn in his grave if he saw that. It could be written in simpler language and be more powerful for it. As it is written here, the choice of language closes the door to most of the English reading population in favour of the erudite (Wittgenstein would be pleased!).
Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
The more I work with and talk to people in the publishing industry, the more value I discover in perscriptive aids. Style guides improve consistency within the work and provide a guide patterns and rhythms of language that make a work readable to the largest possible audience. Otherwise, we exclude potential readers. This is fine in accademia - in fact, encouraged. However, outside the ivory tower, there is a strong desire to reach the widest audience possible.
Your last sentence nails it. People, using their language and their grammar rules, daily break these 18th century prescriptions. They can't help it because our internal grammar parsers know exactly what grammatical entity to choose. We fumble for the right piece of vocabulary more than we fumble for the grammar.
George Orwell was a masterful writer but he was not a grammarian or a linguist. You have used the grammatical passive thrice above, in this last entry you have written. Why? Because your innate/internal grammar parser knows when to use the grammar necessary to the situation. If we were to parse one of Orwell's novels we would find the passive used a lot. Most people can't consciously tell you what a passive is. But even little children know exactly when and where to use, or not use the passive.
I agree that what was written by Professor Pinker is not that easy to get one's mind wrapped around. Language is THEE most complex thing that we humans do. Language scientists study how people use grammar and they are frequently aghast and agape at its complexity. Even the grammatical usage of young children.
But the problem is not Pinker's choice of words, it's simply that he is describing something that is exceedingly complex - the grammar of languages.
Again, at least consider, that these prescriptive rules were simply invented in the 18th century. These invented rules didn't describe [descriptivism] how people had been using the language up to that time when someone, Dryden, ... invented a new rule nor have they been able to stop people from continuing to use them up to today. The simple fact of the matter is, English speakers have never followed these made up rules in their natural everyday use of language. Studies of people using the language, [extensive studies] including the language of the prescriptivists themselves, shows that people can't follow these artificial rules. Why? They are not now, nor were they ever, actual rules of English grammar.
See also, "Most of What You Think You Know About Grammar Is Wrong"
